http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/07/letter-from-the-communion-partners-to-the-archbishop-of-canterbury/
[Anglican Communion Institute] 22 July 2009--Though we have been in touch with you throughout the last year and a half, we simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed.
We do not concur with any action taken that would be interpreted by the larger Communion as divisive, dismissive of our larger Anglican Communion or schismatic. The outgrowth of the decisions of the General Convention has yet to be ultimately determined as to its impact on our common bonds of affection that we should all share, and honor, as part of the worldwide Anglican family.
Some will clearly share the assessment of His Grace, Bishop N.T. Wright that The Episcopal Church has, by its most recent actions, chosen to “walk apart.” It would be our hope that if you share that assessment, that you would also share Bishop’s Wright’s counsel to “…not forget the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, who doggedly loyal to their church, and to the Windsor Report as expressing the mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes within revisionist dioceses (and, for that matter, worshippers within revisionists parishes) who take the same stance,” (The Times, 15 July, 2009). Again, let us categorically state, that we believe our ties to both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion must remain solid and unfettered by any action, resolution or statement that would in any way further tear the very fragile fabric that is now our Anglican family; and therefore would not support any such action, resolution or statement.
Lastly, we reaffirm our pledge of support for the unfolding Covenant process and it is our hope that Part IV of the Ridley Draft will soon be revisited and approved as a pathway for not simply Provinces, but Bishops, Dioceses and individual parishes to renew their commitment not only to the Anglican Communion, but to those vital pillars that in the end, draw us all together, rather than cause further division.
Thank you for the continuuing coverage. Although, Robin, I must confess my lackluster sense toward all the leaders of Common Cause. It would appear to be the result of wide reading and, in view of the news posts in the news and blog worlds, the wide lack of it by many putative Anglicans. I worship in an Anglo-Catholic (ACC) Church twice per month (the BCP is the issue) and a WELS congregation where the Gospel is truly preached. Such is the desperate state of affairs here at Camp Lejeune. All this to the side, thanks for your coverage. I've stopped reading VOL, BTW.
ReplyDeleteI worship in the WELS congregation twice per month. Was not clear there.
ReplyDeleteRobin, been doing some further thinking. I think Anglicanism has cumulative problems that five-to- six generations deep that no one discusses. I am giving this more thought. Dr. Toon used to point to the 1960's, but that is theologically and biblically inadequate. If the 60's was the start of the problem, what were the antecedents for the conditions of the 60's. For me, that dawg won't hunt. Here's some developing reflections.
ReplyDeletehttp://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/calvinistic-anglican-blogs-westminster.html
As the president of the Prayer Book Society and the editor of Manadate the late Peter Toon tended to blame the problems of Anglicanism on the prayer book revision of the sixties and seventies. While prayer book revision may have contributed to these problems, it also was a symptom of the same problems. This is not to say that prayer book revision in itself is bad and should be avoided at all costs. Language and culture, creating a need to make the language of the prayer book more understandable and to address new pastoral situations that did not exist in the past. However, prayer book revision may also be motivated by a desire to change the theology of the prayer book and to add certain "enrichments," which changes the prayer book's theology.
ReplyDeleteRobin:
ReplyDeleteThank you for this.
Second, I was in a different orbit when the TEC was engaging in liturgical reforms of the BCP in the 50's and 60's. To understand all this would require substantial historical evaluation of primary sources. On my end, little motivation to evaluate the emergence and dominance of liberal thought in US Anglicanism. It's destruction on the Presbyterian side is well known to me, as a child of the Princetonian tradition. I know the catechism in the 1979 BCP is, well, "off the reservation" theologically. Very poorly done.
I remain highly unimpressed, theologically, with Anglican leaders. I may be all wet on this, but I just don't find it out there. I find Anglo-Roman defenders and admire their energies and efforts at consistency. I find the Church Society to reflect the historical Anglican Church, but where in the US?
Third, I am not against BCP revision, e.g. implementing modern language for the old 1662 BCP with some changes to reflect the issues on the ground. Yet, something that retains the Anglican identity--a Reformed and Protestant BCP. Something akin to the New King James version of the King James version. I am not optimistic about the level of motivation in the ACNA on this.
Thanks for prompting thoughts on this.